alternatehistory.com

Disclaimer: I really don't have the time necessary to make this into an actual timeline.

I'm thinking about an alternate development for a hypothetical Unionism ideology to Ian Montgomerie's excellent Unification timeline. But just as a warning, this is more of a "fusion" timeline than one that focuses on plausibility. By fusion, I mean a timeline that posits very different circumstances (especially with different people in power in very alternate governments and countries), yet still ends up with certain events occurring. Such as Draka leading to very similar wars happening. Or any post-Southern victory World War I's where the U.S. is in the Central Powers. It can also be thought of as improperly made wallpaper (to steal an analogy from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency)- you try to push down a bubble, and another one forms elsewhere- the timeline attempts to correct itself, and revert to something much like its original form. Why would I want to go off and do such an implausible thing like that? Partially because I figure that any timeline for the 20th century focusing on Unionism (as opposed to unionism) would have to have it gain traction in Europe, Russia, or the Americas, and it could easily read like a rehash of OTL except with an Unionist Germany, or one of those "Central Powers won World War I so France and Britain are all fascist-authoritarian." And partially, having a Unionist bloc facing against the Axis and Comintern is just a neat idea, kind of like having an entire comic book be about Batman finding and beating the stuffing out of Osama Bin Laden for no apparent reason.

So just some thoughts-

1884: "Englishman Maxwell Jameson writes The March to Unity, spawning Unionist philosophy with a work describing the ultimate evolution of society into a unified whole, combining the authoritarian government of the old nobility with the unified nations and meritocracy of the new industrial world." Same thing applies, but some additional commentary- I've realized that Unionism is at its heart a rehashing of Hobbes' idea of the Leviathan- an ultimate government designed to protect humanity, preserve internal peace, and to end war. So Unionism would probably be riffing off a lot of Hobbes' concepts. Additionally, to distinguish it from other forms of authoritarianism, fascism, and modern dictatorship, Unionism would have different priorities. Unlike fascism, with its nationalist/racialist bent, Unionism is like communism in urging an end of cultural/religious distinctions. But to go with Ian's original idea of keeping Unionist as efficient as a system for evil empires, it's also pragmatic. So it wouldn't abolish religion, but rather encourage solving issues between different cultural and ethnic groups, or to adopt certain "artificial" cultures that, like in communism, are made so that they transcend all historical cultures. Like encouraging Esperanto or "Pan-Christian" churches. Of course, just how much tyrannous force is put to enact this "encouragement" depends. Additionally, just because communism was supposed to ignore ethnicity didn't stop Stalin from committing pogroms against Russian Jews, nor did it keep the Sino-Soviet Split from happening (though I think in that race had was a secondary factor), and so Unionist regimes aren't necessary simon-pure in following their own ideology.

I think how'd this timeline would go is that it ignores Unionism becoming largely discredited in the U.K., and have it develop into a strain of thinking that could be adapted for consolidation of power and militarism, but distinct in that it seeks to create a universal state and a brotherhood of man- it's very anti-nationalist. But that's part of the theory. It can also be adapted as a unique form of authoritarianism in certain regimes, and in this timeline it becomes popular in France. Basically, it would hearken to the old days of the Empire, but with the Emperor as a Hobbesian sovereign that's in part a caretaker of the people and bound to natural law. Variants of Unionism develop, and for a brief period, such a regime comes to power in France. Of course it's ended, almost Paris Commune style, but Unionism's capabilities are now known to the world. The Unionist theory remains powerful, but Marxism (which doesn't get handwaved away) and other forms of socialism are still more popular.

This timeline would also feature Unionism warming up in the unlikely incubator of late Qing China. A Confucian variant develops, with much of the theory easily adapted, and again, the emperor's position as bound to the Mandate of Heaven converted as something like the "First Servant of the Empire" or something like that, since he is theoretically high steward of the Unity of man. However, it doesn't really become expansionist, except perhaps in justification of getting back China from the colonizers and possibly the old tributary states, as well as exporting Unionism (Chinese style) abroad. How much influence does it get? I'm not so sure, but I can't exactly see Dowager Empress Cixi being receptive to something that was thought of by a hairy big-nose. But it could be something that some of the scholar-gentry (or whatever the aristocracy in the late 19th century would be in China) could recognize as something that could be good for the Chinese people. And I can see that if a similar Chinese civil war occurs, perhaps some of the reformers realize that democracy (or perhaps the apathetic Western democracies) aren't capable of stopping warlordism and Japanese aggression, and turn towards Unionism for unity. In either case, perhaps Tongmenghui gets a whole new meaning.

Fast forward to a similar World War II- Unionist strains of governance had been present in the Second Reich, but the Third Reich is again Nazi. Like in OTL, initially those who wanted a stronger Germany/Italy/etc. were willing to support the fascists. And this follows, with Unionists being a part of the Reich, but of course subject to rivalry and oppression by the National Socialists. The fact that Unionism, like communism, is internationalist doesn't help matters.

I actually was going to say that France is somewhat different from OTL, and Unionists rise into power after Vichy is created though they eventually stab the Axis in the back, but I think I've gone off the diving board of implausibility and into the pool of ASB, so I'll stop and yield to opinions.
Top